proteus_b:If any of you wonder why it would be a good idea to disband the EPA, this is one fine example.

Er, no. But a pond in the middle of Wyoming? C'mon. They mean to say that there isn't at least 1 or 2 *slightly* larger polluters and creators of environmental nastiness they couldn't go after, so it's some poor schlub with a pond? Talk about going for the low-hanging fruit.

Hang around any facility that processes petrochemicals and/or polymers for a week or two. Guaranteed you'll find something far more more worthy of attention than a freakin duck pond. Bit harder of a target to hit with all those lawyers standing in front I realize, but that's supposed to be the damn job.

IrishBlunder:proteus_b: If any of you wonder why it would be a good idea to disband the EPA, this is one fine example.

Er, no. But a pond in the middle of Wyoming? C'mon. They mean to say that there isn't at least 1 or 2 *slightly* larger polluters and creators of environmental nastiness they couldn't go after, so it's some poor schlub with a pond? Talk about going for the low-hanging fruit.

Hang around any facility that processes petrochemicals and/or polymers for a week or two. Guaranteed you'll find something far more more worthy of attention than a freakin duck pond. Bit harder of a target to hit with all those lawyers standing in front I realize, but that's supposed to be the damn job.

I forgot the EPA is only allowed to do one thing at a time, so going after this guy entirely prevents them from doing anything else ever.

Or in a rational world one arm of the org goes after locals, and the other goes after corps, though I'm going to take a stab in the dark and say corps are protected by local pols where as yahoo farmers are not.

gravy chugging cretin.:CourtroomWolf: Nutsac_Jim: mbillips: If you dam up a creek, you're taking water from people downstream, no matter how small the pond.

I hear it will all make its way down eventually. You arent taking it. You are just delaying that gallon of water a little bit. Unless he dammed himself Lake Erie, they will get the water. A horse is still going to drink a gallon of water that will not make it downstream..

It creates a larger surface area for evaporation.

Increased erosion downstream from his pretty pretty little dam.

How is there more erosion downstream? The guy in front of you said there would be less water.

As usual the Fox news article is lacking. The government enforcing laws that were clearly broken is now something awful that we have to endure. Thanks, Obama.

The Republican senators getting involved suggest that the EPA is making an assumption.

"Fairness and due process require the EPA base its compliance order on more than an assumption," they wrote. "Instead of treating Mr. Johnson as guilty until he proves his innocence by demonstrating his entitlement to the Clean Water Act section 404 (f)(1)(C) stock pond exemption, EPA should make its case that a dam was built and that the Section 404 exemption does not apply."

But the most important derp in the entire situation is of course from Andy himself...

"I think they're trying to gain jurisdiction," Johnson said. "They're trying to see if they can run over me and then they will get into everyone's irrigation ditch and stock ponds throughout not only Wyoming, but the United States.

So basically, this Fox news creating controversy where there is none. You're not allowed to damn a waterway, this man clearly did. Then he claimed the dam he built isn't a dam, because is doesn't stop the water it just delays it, lets it evaporate, allows it to collect animal feces, and then lets it flow freely into other waterways. Which is also part of the EPA's complaint.

"The government says he violated the Clean Water Act by building a dam on a creek without a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers. Further, the EPA claims that material from his pond is being discharged into other waterways."

He had the right permit. Look at that word navigable in the clean water act. The EPA tries to pretend it doesnt exist. Now they are playing connect the dots to claim this creek is a tributary of a tributary of navigable waters. By this logic my toilet is navigable water.

Loren:tkrispin: While I work for a local government (environmental) agency back east, I do admit that the permitting process can be arduous. Between the county, state, and feds, you may be right with one but not the others, and the onus is on the property owner.

Which is something I would like to see changed. How the process *SHOULD* work:

You go down to the local office, you tell them what you want to do. Whatever it is, from opening a lemonade stand to building a nuclear plant, requires *ONE* permit--the onus is on them to pass it along to any other entities that need to be involved. They have a reasonable period of time to either issue it, deny it or request modifications or additional information--and a failure to act is an approval. They are permitted reasonable inspections of ongoing work and a reasonable notice period--but again, failure = approval.

cameroncrazy1984: It was probably sufficient for what he asked for, not necessarily what he used it for

This. I think he requested a permit for only part of the job, likely knowing he couldn't get the rest.

Yeah that would help things, I don't know if that would require more employees to implement though. And everyone's definition of "reasonable" tends to differ. The state will ask us about problems we delt with 2 years before. My county has over 800,000 people, so I don't know how your solution would scale. Worth a try though.

Oh and in this case (most cases actually), each day of noncompliance is a new offense and find apply.

Ambitwistor:Boloxor the Insipid: People saying you can't just damn up a waterway are not paying attention. In fact, you can do so if you have a permit. This guy got a permit. He did everything he could possibly do to make a legitimate stock pond.

As James! said, he apparently didn't have the right permit: the EPA claims that he needed to get one from the Army Corps of Engineers, and did not. If so, I feel bad for the guy: it's hard to navigate the bureaucracy. But it doesn't give him a legal right.

You ignorant liberals realize the EPA has a string of cases they have lost overstepping their authority.

There was no dam. It was a stock pond once filled the creek continues to flow. Learn what a stock pond is.

This is not a navigable waterway. That word is important.

The USSC and DC circuit have plenty of prior precedence regarding stock ponds and the EPA.

SenorBenedict: IrishBlunder: proteus_b: If any of you wonder why it would be a good idea to disband the EPA, this is one fine example.

Er, no. But a pond in the middle of Wyoming? C'mon. They mean to say that there isn't at least 1 or 2 *slightly* larger polluters and creators of environmental nastiness they couldn't go after, so it's some poor schlub with a pond? Talk about going for the low-hanging fruit.

Hang around any facility that processes petrochemicals and/or polymers for a week or two. Guaranteed you'll find something far more more worthy of attention than a freakin duck pond. Bit harder of a target to hit with all those lawyers standing in front I realize, but that's supposed to be the damn job.

I forgot the EPA is only allowed to do one thing at a time, so going after this guy entirely prevents them from doing anything else ever.

Spare me the lame sarcasm. Quantitative doesn't override qualitative.

Or in a rational world one arm of the org goes after locals, and the other goes after corps, though I'm going to take a stab in the dark and say corps are protected by local pols where as yahoo farmers are not.

Then the EPA can do a study on the environmental impact of the pond on the land and have the courts render a verdict. Rubber-stamp levying of fines for insufficient paperwork is bullshiat.

MyRandomName:Ambitwistor: Boloxor the Insipid: People saying you can't just damn up a waterway are not paying attention. In fact, you can do so if you have a permit. This guy got a permit. He did everything he could possibly do to make a legitimate stock pond.

As James! said, he apparently didn't have the right permit: the EPA claims that he needed to get one from the Army Corps of Engineers, and did not. If so, I feel bad for the guy: it's hard to navigate the bureaucracy. But it doesn't give him a legal right.

You ignorant liberals realize the EPA has a string of cases they have lost overstepping their authority.

There was no dam. It was a stock pond once filled the creek continues to flow. Learn what a stock pond is.

This is not a navigable waterway. That word is important.

The USSC and DC circuit have plenty of prior precedence regarding stock ponds and the EPA.

STOP thinking the federal government is always right.

But there is a dam. It's right in the farking article.

And I'm not shiatting you, 100 years ago somebody would have just shot his ass.

Semantic Warrior:boyvoyeur: Landowner - I want to build a pond and dam a waterway and discharge water elsewhere on my property.

State Government - OK, you can build a pond.

Federal Government - Wait, your pond is fine. We got issues with the other stuff you did damning of a creek you do not own, and that your pond water and runoff is going into other waterways that you also do not own

FTFYHe rants on about rights and other right-wing talking points, neglecting that those around him have the right to not be affected by his "dream" pond.

I swear. Do any of you know how stock ponds work? Once filled they act as a pass through. There is no damming. He got the permits necessary. This is not navigable waters, the EPA has claimed since ot was a tributary of a tributary of navigable waters they have authority. The supreme court disagrees. The EPA is currently trying to remove the word navigable through rule making. This will be yet another loss to the EPA in the D.C. circuit. They already got struck down for these finds without allowing judicial review just last year.

God Damon some of you people seem to love in authoritarian governments.

Do you think this is the forst farking stock pond in history? They are fairly common and this person followed the way to do it.

Some of you liberals won't be happy until we reach the same level of government as in hitchhiker guide to the galaxy.

IrishBlunder:Then the EPA can do a study on the environmental impact of the pond on the land and have the courts render a verdict. Rubber-stamp levying of fines for insufficient paperwork is bullshiat.

Why should tax payers have to pay for the Environmental Impact Statement for this guys pond? He wants to keep his pond, he can pay.

shtychkn:IrishBlunder: Then the EPA can do a study on the environmental impact of the pond on the land and have the courts render a verdict. Rubber-stamp levying of fines for insufficient paperwork is bullshiat.

Why should tax payers have to pay for the Environmental Impact Statement for this guys pond? He wants to keep his pond, he can pay.

This.

Honestly, given the choice, I'd go ahead and blow all dams. Rivers are a static thing like fire is cold. Then them run free!

MyRandomName:Semantic Warrior: boyvoyeur: Landowner - I want to build a pond and dam a waterway and discharge water elsewhere on my property.

State Government - OK, you can build a pond.

Federal Government - Wait, your pond is fine. We got issues with the other stuff you did damning of a creek you do not own, and that your pond water and runoff is going into other waterways that you also do not own

FTFYHe rants on about rights and other right-wing talking points, neglecting that those around him have the right to not be affected by his "dream" pond.

I swear. Do any of you know how stock ponds work? Once filled they act as a pass through. There is no damming. He got the permits necessary. This is not navigable waters, the EPA has claimed since ot was a tributary of a tributary of navigable waters they have authority. The supreme court disagrees. The EPA is currently trying to remove the word navigable through rule making. This will be yet another loss to the EPA in the D.C. circuit. They already got struck down for these finds without allowing judicial review just last year.

God Damon some of you people seem to love in authoritarian governments.

Do you think this is the forst farking stock pond in history? They are fairly common and this person followed the way to do it.

Some of you liberals won't be happy until we reach the same level of government as in hitchhiker guide to the galaxy.

I would bet you that someone (bureaucrat) sat and waited until he was done and then pounced on this guy because his brother-in-law wants it now that it is complete. After they bankrupt this guy and the BIL gets the land for nothing, the bureaucrat will make some sort of deal where the BIL just kicks a couple ounces of dirt in the water and the area in suddenly in compliance.

iheartscotch:Didn't some guy get his property taken by the EPA for clearing a deadfall that was blocking a ditch?

I remember that case. Because of debris from a major storm, a waterway was blocked and resulted in a flood problem. The county was so busy they told the property owner it would be at least two weeks before they could send a crew, but it was ok for him to clear it himself. So he did. Then the EPA heard about it and went after him. Damn stupid. I hope he didn't lose his property.

There are certain factions in the EPA who seem to get off on farking with people.

tkrispin:Loren: tkrispin: While I work for a local government (environmental) agency back east, I do admit that the permitting process can be arduous. Between the county, state, and feds, you may be right with one but not the others, and the onus is on the property owner.

Which is something I would like to see changed. How the process *SHOULD* work:

You go down to the local office, you tell them what you want to do. Whatever it is, from opening a lemonade stand to building a nuclear plant, requires *ONE* permit--the onus is on them to pass it along to any other entities that need to be involved. They have a reasonable period of time to either issue it, deny it or request modifications or additional information--and a failure to act is an approval. They are permitted reasonable inspections of ongoing work and a reasonable notice period--but again, failure = approval.

cameroncrazy1984: It was probably sufficient for what he asked for, not necessarily what he used it for

This. I think he requested a permit for only part of the job, likely knowing he couldn't get the rest.

Yeah that would help things, I don't know if that would require more employees to implement though. And everyone's definition of "reasonable" tends to differ. The state will ask us about problems we delt with 2 years before. My county has over 800,000 people, so I don't know how your solution would scale. Worth a try though.

Oh and in this case (most cases actually), each day of noncompliance is a new offense and find apply.

I don't know what reasonable would be, either, but it would be defined in the law, not left up to them to decide. I'm sure it would require more employees but since it would be putting the government against itself I think we would see a lot more efficiency as a result--inefficiency would have a cost in the budget rather than being offloaded onto the people seeking to do things. That would mean savings to the departments as they streamline things and thus there would be an incentive to do so.

Consider the local situation when a licensed professional in many areas seeks to work at a location: Business licenses, zoning? (I forget exactly what, but they have to approve the business location despite the fact that in the case I'm talking about it's an already-operating endeavor) and a sales tax permit (even though such professionals normally would end up filing a totally blank report every year.) It's stupid enough that they need business licenses at all, the three separate departments to get it are nuts.

SenorBenedict:IrishBlunder: proteus_b: If any of you wonder why it would be a good idea to disband the EPA, this is one fine example.

Er, no. But a pond in the middle of Wyoming? C'mon. They mean to say that there isn't at least 1 or 2 *slightly* larger polluters and creators of environmental nastiness they couldn't go after, so it's some poor schlub with a pond? Talk about going for the low-hanging fruit.

Hang around any facility that processes petrochemicals and/or polymers for a week or two. Guaranteed you'll find something far more more worthy of attention than a freakin duck pond. Bit harder of a target to hit with all those lawyers standing in front I realize, but that's supposed to be the damn job.

I forgot the EPA is only allowed to do one thing at a time, so going after this guy entirely prevents them from doing anything else ever.

Or in a rational world one arm of the org goes after locals, and the other goes after corps, though I'm going to take a stab in the dark and say corps are protected by local pols where as yahoo farmers are not.

Go read the farking thread right next to this one about Duke energy. Either the EPA has limited resources that they are wasting in bumf* nowhere on a duck pond, or the other arm needs to taken out back, shot and the duck pond division put in its place

viscountalpha:I'm siding with the guy. The burden of proof is on the EPA.

All he has to do is when the EPA takes him to court is show the judge is permit that they issued him to dam the creek. Problem solved.

Seriously guy sounds like a crank. Some friends of mine own some property with a seasonal creek boarding it. They view it with some suspicion since it's under the jurisdiction of the city, the country, the water district, the State Gov, and the Feds. Anyone who isn't a crank or a dumbshiat tweeker redneck knows to do anything to a creek you'll need a permit from each entity with jurisdiction over it.

ShadowKamui:Go read the farking thread right next to this one about Duke energy. Either the EPA has limited resources that they are wasting in bumf* nowhere on a duck pond, or the other arm needs to taken out back, shot and the duck pond division put in its place

What resources do you think the EPA has spent on this guy's issue? This whole mountain that Fox News is trying to make of the story is in all likelihood just a molehill consisting of a couple of letters.

Also I shouldn't have to tell anyone that the fark headline is of course complete and utter horseshait. The guy hasn't been fined a cent. This is just the standard tactic of taking the absolute maximum penalties that the potential violation could possibly incur, pretending those penalties have already been levied, and whining about oppression.

Okay, this guy is a confirmed total dumbass with a persecution complex. From the doc linked above here's the relevant section on what he did wrong:

4. Six Mile Creek is a perennial tributary of the Blacks Fork River, which is a perennial tributary of the Green River. The Green River is, and was at all relevant times, a navigable, interstate water of the United States.5. In or about the summer and early fall of2012, Respondent or persons acting on his behalf began construction activities, without a CWA section 404 permit, within and adjacent to Six Mile Creek that resulted in the discharge of dredged and fill material to the creek below the ordinary high water mark.6. On October 11,2012, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) conducted an inspection of the Site and confirmed that Respondent or persons acting on his behalf had discharged or allowed the discharge of approximately 12 cubic yards of dredged and fill material below the ordinary high water mark of Six Mile Creek during construction of a dam. The work resulted in filling an approximately 40-foot reach of the creek and inundation of an approximately reach.7. On September 5, 2012, the Corps contacted Mr. Johnson by telephone to inquire about the dam construction activities at the Site and authorization for the work. The Corps also informed Respondent of the Corps' CWA regulatory authority and requested that Respondent send information about the dam construction project to the Corps. The Corps did not receive any such information from Respondent following that telephone conversation.8. On October 26,2012, the Corps sent a letter to Respondent notifying him that a standard project-specific CWA permit would have been required prior to the dam construction activities, but that an application for such a permit was never received by the Corps and authorization was never granted. Therefore, the project was performed in violation of section 30 I (a) of the CW A, 33 U .S.C. § 1311 (a). The October 26, 2012, letter further ordered Respondent to cease and desist any further earth-moving activities at the Site.9. On February 7, 2013, the Corps referred this case to the EPA for enforcement in accordance with the "Memorandum of Agreement Between the Department of the Army and the Papc 2 of IO Environmental Protection Agency Concerning Federal Enforcement of the Section 404 Program of the Clean Water Act," dated January 19, 1989,10. On May 30,2013, the EPA performed an inspection of the Site and verified that an approximately 40-foot reach of Six Mile Creek had been filled during the construction of a dam, impacting approximately 785 feet of the Six Mile Creek channeL The dam was observed to be composed of sand, gravel, clay, and concrete blocks.

So the guy was clearly informed by phone that we would need a CWA permit and he was asked to provide information. In response to this he did not get a permit and did not give any information. He basically ignored the warning and request for information and just kept right on with building the pond and dam. Then almost two months later he got a letter again making clear that he needed a permit and that his continued activity was in violation. In response to all this he continues ignoring the issue and continues to build. So recently the agency probably sent him a strongly worded letter that listed the penalties for his violations, and he clutches his pearls and heads off to Fox News to flog his story of persecution when in reality he's a complete dumbass who brought this all on himself by intentionally ignoring the warning he received and waving a state permit that has nothing to do with allowing him to discharge large amounts of fill into the creek.

If he build a "stock pond" he is allowed to dump dredged material in the stream, river, and ultimately ocean without an ACE permit, unless there is an actual rather than hypothetical impairment of navigable waters. That seems the be the contentious issue here. What did he build?

Often when Congress leaves an exception the agency will narrow it by regulation. They might define stock pond to include only pits smaller than three inches in diameter and two inches deep. There is apparently an ongoing legal dispute because the EPA and ACE haven't been able to get anything binding through the rulemaking process. (2013 commentary)

The EPA said he damned a creek. Reality is he built a stock pond near a creek. The EPA is pissed over their attempted takeover of the Wind River land. Wyoming told the EPA to go get bent, so they are taking a legal stock pond out on a Wyo land owner.

Thrag:Okay, this guy is a confirmed total dumbass with a persecution complex. From the doc linked above here's the relevant section on what he did wrong:

4. Six Mile Creek is a perennial tributary of the Blacks Fork River, which is a perennial tributary of the Green River. The Green River is, and was at all relevant times, a navigable, interstate water of the United States.5. In or about the summer and early fall of2012, Respondent or persons acting on his behalf began construction activities, without a CWA section 404 permit, within and adjacent to Six Mile Creek that resulted in the discharge of dredged and fill material to the creek below the ordinary high water mark.6. On October 11,2012, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) conducted an inspection of the Site and confirmed that Respondent or persons acting on his behalf had discharged or allowed the discharge of approximately 12 cubic yards of dredged and fill material below the ordinary high water mark of Six Mile Creek during construction of a dam. The work resulted in filling an approximately 40-foot reach of the creek and inundation of an approximately reach.7. On September 5, 2012, the Corps contacted Mr. Johnson by telephone to inquire about the dam construction activities at the Site and authorization for the work. The Corps also informed Respondent of the Corps' CWA regulatory authority and requested that Respondent send information about the dam construction project to the Corps. The Corps did not receive any such information from Respondent following that telephone conversation.8. On October 26,2012, the Corps sent a letter to Respondent notifying him that a standard project-specific CWA permit would have been required prior to the dam construction activities, but that an application for such a permit was never received by the Corps and authorization was never granted. Therefore, the project was performed in violation of section 30 I (a) of the CW A, 33 U .S.C. § 1311 (a). The October 26, ...

The Blacks Fork River is not a navigable waterway. It won't support fish or travel as it dries up every year. That river averages 6 inches in depth when it's not dry. The Blacks Fork drains into the Flaming Gorge which disperses all sediment.

Again, the feds are pissed about what is happening with the EPA's attempted land grab in the Riverton area.

Thrag:Okay, this guy is a confirmed total dumbass with a persecution complex. From the doc linked above here's the relevant section on what he did wrong:

4. Six Mile Creek is a perennial tributary of the Blacks Fork River, which is a perennial tributary of the Green River. The Green River is, and was at all relevant times, a navigable, interstate water of the United States.5. In or about the summer and early fall of2012, Respondent or persons acting on his behalf began construction activities, without a CWA section 404 permit, within and adjacent to Six Mile Creek that resulted in the discharge of dredged and fill material to the creek below the ordinary high water mark.6. On October 11,2012, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) conducted an inspection of the Site and confirmed that Respondent or persons acting on his behalf had discharged or allowed the discharge of approximately 12 cubic yards of dredged and fill material below the ordinary high water mark of Six Mile Creek during construction of a dam. The work resulted in filling an approximately 40-foot reach of the creek and inundation of an approximately reach.7. On September 5, 2012, the Corps contacted Mr. Johnson by telephone to inquire about the dam construction activities at the Site and authorization for the work. The Corps also informed Respondent of the Corps' CWA regulatory authority and requested that Respondent send information about the dam construction project to the Corps. The Corps did not receive any such information from Respondent following that telephone conversation.8. On October 26,2012, the Corps sent a letter to Respondent notifying him that a standard project-specific CWA permit would have been required prior to the dam construction activities, but that an application for such a permit was never received by the Corps and authorization was never granted. Therefore, the project was performed in violation of section 30 I (a) of the CW A, 33 U .S.C. § 1311 (a). The October 26, ...

Ah. So what he means is he COULD have had a legal permit, but didn't; and is now claiming that because he COULD have gotten one, they are persecuting him and his god-given rights to dam his own property .

If he build a "stock pond" he is allowed to dump dredged material in the stream, river, and ultimately ocean without an ACE permit, unless there is an actual rather than hypothetical impairment of navigable waters. That seems the be the contentious issue here. What did he build?

Often when Congress leaves an exception the agency will narrow it by regulation. They might define stock pond to include only pits smaller than three inches in diameter and two inches deep. There is apparently an ongoing legal dispute because the EPA and ACE haven't been able to get anything binding through the rulemaking process. (2013 commentary)

It's entirely possible that what he did was covered under an exemption. If so it would make the guy even more of a total dumbass. It is possible if he has just give the requested information he'd be fine. But instead it appears he chose to ignore the warning and request for info and continued with dumping fill into the creek.

It's like starting a major renovation, and when the building inspector stops by to say "uh, we don't seem to have a permit on file for this, can we see your plans?" you just ignore them and carry on building. Worse yet, look at how the issue is being framed politically, from the fox news article: "Instead of treating Mr. Johnson as guilty until he proves his innocence by demonstrating his entitlement to the Clean Water Act section 404 (f)(1)(C) stock pond exemption, EPA should make its case that a dam was built and that the Section 404 exemption does not apply." So this is essentially telling the building inspector "you have to prove to me what I'm doing needs a permit" when you won't even give them plans or any details on what you are building.

It seems the main issue isn't even the existence of the pond or the damn, it's that the guy was dumping literally tons of fill into the creek. From the letter above it mentions 12cy, that's about 30 tons of dirt. That is from an inspection during construction so it's not the total amount of fill they dumped into the creek.

Thrag:4. Six Mile Creek is a perennial tributary of the Blacks Fork River, which is a perennial tributary of the Green River. The Green River is, and was at all relevant times, a navigable, interstate water of the United States.

In other words, the non-navigable creek feeds, from time to time, into a non-navigable river, which feeds into an actual navigable river. It's like arguing that a dirt road that connects to a gravel road which connects to an Interstate highway is also an Interstate highway.

So he's two removes away from the actual jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA.

Like I posted above: the EPA is trying to expand the definition of "navigable waterway" to pretty much any source of water. So the water that flows across your yard into a ditch behind your house is now under their jurisdiction, according to the same theory.

cirby:Thrag:4. Six Mile Creek is a perennial tributary of the Blacks Fork River, which is a perennial tributary of the Green River. The Green River is, and was at all relevant times, a navigable, interstate water of the United States.

In other words, the non-navigable creek feeds, from time to time, into a non-navigable river, which feeds into an actual navigable river. It's like arguing that a dirt road that connects to a gravel road which connects to an Interstate highway is also an Interstate highway.

So he's two removes away from the actual jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA.

Like I posted above: the EPA is trying to expand the definition of "navigable waterway" to pretty much any source of water. So the water that flows across your yard into a ditch behind your house is now under their jurisdiction, according to the same theory.

That's an issue that can certainly be argued in the courts or clarified through additional legislation. It doesn't change what a complete dumbass the guy was to completely ignore the warnings and requests for information and just keep right on dumping fill into the creek.

In alternative universe Fark, where the headlines are sarcastically correct instead of total bullshiat, this headline would read:

"Man who repeatedly ignored warnings that he needs a permit before dumping tons of fill into a creek while building a dam and a stock pond whines like a biatch when he's told of the penalties for continuing to ignore the fact that he needed a permit"

"Said permit is in good standing and is entitled to be exercised exactly as permitted," the letter reads.

"As permitted"... Is there a better article that states whether or not he actually built the pond--"as permitted"? I mean, if he didn't comply with the conditions of the permit, then he has no complaint. Having a permit doesn't mean jack shiat if you don't actually follow the rules.

Man fined $75,000 per day for building something on his own property that he got a permit to build

You know what? A) Opposing views, I'm not clicking.B) Obviously trollish headline to get a click for opposing vitriol, nope. Not biting. I don't need to read any part of it to know that the man did something stupid, and then was stupid for thinking he had his ass covered, and then made a big stupid pig ass out of himself trying to act like he was the victim here. So thanks for the find. Now go post some jezesmell links so I can not click on them either but instead surgically dissect them with mathematical-like precision from just looking at the troll headline.

Apparently he is claiming an exemption from permit under CWA section 404(f)(1)(C). (epa.gov)

"the discharge of dredge or fill material ... for the purpose of construction or maintenance of farm or stock ponds or irrigation ditches, or the maintenance of drainage ditches ... is not prohibited by or otherwise subject to regulation".

If the exemption does not apply, he needed an ACE permit to build the water body. EPA says he has to prove to their satisfaction that his water body is within the exemption. He says EPA has to prove he is not subject to the exemption.

Seems to me like a non-moron (or someone who wasn't planning on playing the "fight the government" game from the beginning) would have gotten the "exemption" stuff straightened out BEFORE he out in the pond, right?

cirby:Thrag:4. Six Mile Creek is a perennial tributary of the Blacks Fork River, which is a perennial tributary of the Green River. The Green River is, and was at all relevant times, a navigable, interstate water of the United States.

In other words, the non-navigable creek feeds, from time to time, into a non-navigable river, which feeds into an actual navigable river. It's like arguing that a dirt road that connects to a gravel road which connects to an Interstate highway is also an Interstate highway.

So he's two removes away from the actual jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA.

Like I posted above: the EPA is trying to expand the definition of "navigable waterway" to pretty much any source of water. So the water that flows across your yard into a ditch behind your house is now under their jurisdiction, according to the same theory.

foxtail:I would bet you that someone (bureaucrat) sat and waited until he was done and then pounced on this guy because his brother-in-law wants it now that it is complete. After they bankrupt this guy and the BIL gets the land for nothing, the bureaucrat will make some sort of deal where the BIL just kicks a couple ounces of dirt in the water and the area in suddenly in compliance.

Oldiron_79:foxtail: I would bet you that someone (bureaucrat) sat and waited until he was done and then pounced on this guy because his brother-in-law wants it now that it is complete. After they bankrupt this guy and the BIL gets the land for nothing, the bureaucrat will make some sort of deal where the BIL just kicks a couple ounces of dirt in the water and the area in suddenly in compliance.

Quite possably.

According to the documents that were linked in the thread he was warned years ago during the construction. It was a real nice persecution fantasy you had there. Sorry to ruin it for you guys.